The state Judicial Conduct Board devoted so much of its limited staff and resources to prosecuting misconduct charges against former Judge Ann H. Lokuta, it was ill-equipped to investigate an anonymous complaint against the two ex-Luzerne County judges later accused in a kids-for-cash scandal, a conduct board attorney said.

Conduct board attorney Paul H. Titus admitted last week that the board's inaction, compounded by budget constraints and an intense focus on the Lokuta case, missed critical questions about the judges' handling of civil cases and their relationship with an attorney involved in the corruption scandal.

"If you have a prosecutor who is actively pursuing somebody, who thinks they have charges that can remove them (from office), you're going to get quicker reaction," Mr. Titus said. "Lokuta was taking all of the time. That's the problem."

By the time the complaint arrived accusing Michael Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. of 22 separate ethical breaches in September 2006, the conduct board was already two-and-a-half years into its case against Ms. Lokuta and was on the verge of bringing formal charges to a state discipline court.

A full investigation of the Conahan and Ciavarella allegations would have required interviews with at least 40 witnesses and would have still been in progress when they were removed from office following federal charges last January, Mr. Titus said.

"There were real issues raised about a whole bunch of civil cases and reassignments - there were issues, no doubt about it," Mr. Titus said. "The thing you have to look is the issue of resources here."

The discipline court removed Ms. Lokuta from the bench in December 2008 after finding she was "impatient, undignified and discourteous" to her staff, created a tense atmosphere in her chambers, badgered witnesses and attorneys and arrived late to court sessions.

The conduct board voted in March 2007 against taking action on the Conahan and Ciavarella complaint, deferring to an ongoing federal investigation targeting the judges.

The conduct board's inaction allowed Mr. Conahan and Mr. Ciavarella to remain on the bench for more than two years while the anonymous complaint gathered dust, Kenneth J. Horoho, a member of the state commission probing the kids-for-cash scandal, said.

Mr. Horoho estimated that, in that time, Mr. Ciavarella might have sentenced more than 2,000 juveniles to the for-profit detention centers he and Mr. Conahan were allegedly paid off to support.

Ms. Lokuta's attorney, George Michak, said the conduct board's pursuit of his client and inaction on Mr. Conahan and Mr. Ciavarella - both of who testified against her - smacked of an absurd double standard.

"They committed all of their resources to prosecuting a judge who was accused of having a bad attitude in lieu of pursuing serious allegations against two judges accused of serious ethical breaches and even criminal conduct," Mr. Michak said. "I think that's problematic."

The conduct board, with just three attorneys and three investigators, receives more than 600 complaints each year, accusing magistrates, common pleas judges and appellate court judges of everything from tardiness and laziness to bias and case fixing.

Despite a state constitutional mandate to investigate each complaint, the conduct board and its staffers often resolve or dismiss complaints long before filing formal charges with a state discipline court.

In 2007, the board disposed of 643 complaints, dismissing 615 after a preliminary inquiry, 17 after a full investigation and 34 after sending the accused judge a letter of caution. Two resulted in a formal disciplinary proceeding, like the one Mrs. Lokuta faced.

"Are you telling us that those two cases are basically putting the JCB on the brink of financial disaster here?" Mr. Horoho asked the chairman of the conduct board, John R. Cellucci, during a hearing Tuesday. "Are those two prosecutions causing you to not be as diligent as the constitution mandates you to be?"

Mr. Cellucci said the conduct board has been "strapped" by budget cuts, but refuted Mr. Horoho's intimation and Mr. Titus' admission that prosecuting judges bogged the conduct board down from completing its mission.

"Not correct," Mr. Cellucci said, claiming the conduct board's attorneys review every complaint and make recommendations to the board on how to proceed.

"Now if there's not enough information, enough to show that a judge has done any wrongdoing, we dismiss it," Mr. Cellucci said.

Mr. Cellucci's testimony before the commission appeared to clash with the conduct board's track record and its assessment of the Ciavarella and Conahan complaint, which Mr. Cellucci said did not raise a "red flag."

The complaint included allegations Mr. Conahan and Mr. Ciavarella consorted with a mob boss and cavorted with one of the backers of the for-profit juvenile detention centers, former Drums attorney Robert J. Powell.

Mr. Ciavarella's children were given access to a condominium Mr. Powell owned in Florida, the complaint said. Mr. Ciavarella and Mr. Conahan, their staffs and Mr. Conahan's cousin, former Court Administrator William T. Sharkey Sr., also were guests at the condominium and on Mr. Powell's yacht, Reel Justice, the complaint said.

At the same time, Mr. Ciavarella was presiding over civil cases in which Mr. Powell's clients racked up $16 million in damages, but never disclosed his extrajudicial relationship with the attorney, the complaint said.

"I think it's obscene to suggest that burden of interviewing 40 witnesses to test those allegations is too much of a burden on the Judicial Conduct Board," Mr. Michak said. "I think it's offensive to even make the statement that, because of the money they needed to commit to Judge Lokuta's case they weren't able to pursue those very serious allegations ethical misconduct and criminal violations."

The conduct board has not disclosed the cost of Ms. Lokuta's case, which included depositions and testimony from more than 30 witnesses and 12 days of hearings between September 2007 and January 2008.

"There are some what-ifs here that are troublesome," Mr. Titus said.

Contact the writer: msisak@citizensvoice.com

Write your comment here

Your name

Word verification

Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.

I have read and accepted the website's terms for commenting

10 posted comments

I like Ann, & I hope it comes out in her favor, after all is said and done.

Real crooks! If the JCB or most of them were not knowingly, willingly, & intentionally aiding & abetting their buddy judges then I'll be waiting for the tooth fairy & Santa this yr. The BS herein by these crooks is more than obscene; its LOOKIN criminal! What GOODIES did they collect for their criminal loyalty? I hope FBI digs in & finds it. They think they are "untouchable" & if they are; the taxpayers are doomed to support criminal activity or stop it thru some unified action. Keep blamin Lokuta you naked fools!

Agree with comments, notwithstanding, the Lokuta case possessed so many individuals were willing to testify and the PaJCB had copious consistent complaints from percipient parties reverting back to circa 1995. While Conahan corruption complaints were filed with the PaJIRB in 1989 and continued through the present actions with the now PaJCB; Mike was much more complicated, involving many more prominent parties and on-going cover-ups as time will ultimately reveal. Simply, it is beneficial for Luzerne County Courts to progress forward unfettered of both subjects.

There is positively, absolutely NO excise for the Conduct Board to have given such grevious charges a back seat to anything else. Compare the charges and their choice to pursue a bad tempered bully vs those who were ruining lives is beyond rediculous. Did they have recourse to ask a State Agency (such as the State Attorney General's Office) for assistance because they didn't have the resources?

Anonymous or not a complaint is a complaint. The conduct board should have removed its blinders. It would have been an easier investigation to find the Usage of Yachts and Million Dollar Condos than the discovery of who is hanging Dirty Laundry for a Menstrating Judge. The anonymous complaint probably had something to do with the one complaint of covorting with Organized Crime. If the Conduct board was afraid to investigate it think of how afraid the person was to report it!!

I think this would be a perfect case of picking your battles between the mean old lady judge and the thieving scoundrels sending kids to jail to line thier pockets. If they can't do the job, fire their asses and get someone in power that has the ability to protect the public.

Think you have the cutest pet in NEPA? Share a photo of your furry companion and you could win prizes from our sponsors! Deadline to submit an entry is March 19, and voting will take place from March 20-March 31.